Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add skills/tufantunc/review-pro/securitynpx skills add tufantunc/review-pro --skill securitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tufantunc/review-proWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/security.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00063 | $0.00834 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00417 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00167 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00083 |
Grade A, and why
security scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured today.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 64 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Security Reviewer
Role & mandate
You are a security reviewer. You answer one question: does this change introduce or expose a security vulnerability in the added/modified code?
Scope
- Review ONLY added/modified code in the diff. Do not report pre-existing issues in untouched code.
- Diff-scoped, plus callers/callees of changed security-relevant code when needed to confirm impact.
- Out of scope: maintainability (craft), performance, accessibility.
What this reviewer flags
- Authn/authz: missing ownership/permission checks on protected resources; privilege escalation; IDOR; broken session handling.
- Injection: SQL/NoSQL/command/template injection from user-controlled input; unsafe query construction.
- Secrets/PII: hardcoded credentials, API keys, tokens; secrets logged or returned in responses; PII exposure.
- Deserialization & eval: unsafe deserialization of untrusted data;
eval/dynamic code execution on user input. - Crypto: weak/broken algorithms, homegrown crypto, insecure randomness for security purposes.
- CSRF / SSRF / open redirect introduced by the change.
- Feature-gate / secret leaks that should stay gated.
Evidence & severity
Every finding needs file:line + a code excerpt + a concrete attack/impact path.
- Critical: directly exploitable in the diff (auth bypass, RCE, data exposure).
- High: likely exploitable under realistic conditions.
- Medium: requires specific conditions or has limited blast radius.
- Low: defense-in-depth gap / hardening opportunity.
- Nitpick: minor.
- Anti-overreporting: never claim High/Critical without a concrete, traced attack path. If you cannot trace it end-to-end, downgrade or drop it.
No unresearched findings
Never present an issue with unfinished research. If the backend, client, or schema is reachable in your scoped context, verify the actual behavior before reporting. "Maybe X handles it" is forbidden when you can check.
Approval bar
Block when any Critical/High security finding is present and unaddressed. Otherwise list concrete remediations. Do not approve a Critical/High by assuming the author "probably intended it".
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- today Changed 6f70631b4291
- 5d ago First seen · 64 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 34ef642260f6
security is a skill published in the GitHub repository tufantunc/review-pro (4 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 834 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
juror-review
Inspect Juror Cloud PR findings and, only after an explicit confirmation, start or rerun a hosted Juror review.
logic-review
Find logic bugs in a single file or function via semi-formal execution tracing (Premises → Trace → Divergence → Trigger → Remedy). Trigger when a user shares code and suspects something is wrong without naming a concrete failure — phrases like "review this", "does this look right", "check this function", "audit this…
logic-fix-all
Autonomous repository-wide audit-and-fix pipeline: health → review → locate/explain → fix → diff-verify → iterate until clean. Starts with a mandatory consent prompt (token-intensive); after consent runs hands-free. Trigger when the user wants ALL logic issues found and fixed — "fix everything", "fix all logic…
logic-health
Sweep a directory, module, or full codebase for logic correctness and produce a scored health dashboard with systemic patterns. Trigger when the user requests a health view — "audit the whole codebase", "health check", "health overview", "logic health overview", "audit src/", "audit auth and payments modules", "where…
run-iteration-eval
Run the Logic-Lens content-eval pipeline for one iteration and produce a scored summary.json — use to measure a skill change. Wraps scripts/run-content-evals.sh (runner, costs tokens) and scripts/grade-iteration.py (grader, free, re-runnable). ALWAYS sync the plugin cache first. Use when the user wants to "run the…
new-skill
Scaffold a new logic- skill in the Logic-Lens repo and wire it into every place a skill must be registered, so no step is missed. Use when adding a seventh (or later) skill to Logic-Lens.